Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California law prohibits the taping of anyone without their knowledge.
Show me your rebuttal to this:
Quote:
Generally, it is perfectly legal to videotape or photograph any person and anything while on public property, except:
You cannot take pictures of areas that are usually considered private such as bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms and so on
Certain public places have banned the use of cameras such as mass transit systems, courthouses, capital buildings, secured government buildings, jails or prisons unless you obtain written permission
You cannot film or photograph if it interferes with police, fire, medical or emergency operations
Not true. Videotaping without the consent of both parties in a confidential session is illegal.
Actually I think you can videotape in a public place, but you can't record a conversation or communication, this includes public places. So if they had no audio, it wouldn't be illegal, since they did, it is illegal. Here is the California code.
See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
Actually I think you can videotape in a public place, but you can't record a conversation or communication, this includes public places. So if they had no audio, it wouldn't be illegal, since they did, it is illegal. Here is the California code.
See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
California Attorney General Jerry Brown cleared Vera of wrongdoing in a report earlier this year. Brown found that, though Vera appeared sympathetic to the "pimp and prostitute" during the taped meeting, he immediately notified the police of the conversation. Brown's investigation also found that the O'Keefe videos were "significantly edited."
Thank you. I stand corrected. However, this does confirm the videotaping was indeed illegal.
The taping was illegal. If anything this proves that O'Keefe and Giles are discredited and are not objective reporters. You can safely assume anything they produce, whether illegal or legal, is distorted.
Last edited by Sid and Nancy; 07-13-2010 at 10:36 AM..
Actually I think you can videotape in a public place, but you can't record a conversation or communication, this includes public places. So if they had no audio, it wouldn't be illegal, since they did, it is illegal. Here is the California code.
See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
and I'll bet you found this with just a simple google search, something that some posters have an aversion to as it might educate or enlighten. Good post...
They didn't do anything illegal. Video taping is allowed in a public place and an ACORN office is a public place.
Now that you have been provided with accurate info and you must concede that you are wrong, what about the fact that it was all a big fat lie anyway proliferated by Faux News? Nothing to comment about that?
Selective editing and lying by omission is perfectly acceptable - even awarded an Oscar - when it's done in support of left-wing causes. When done in support of right-wing causes, however, it's "illegal," "fabricated" and they "should sue."
Things that make you go, "Hmmm....."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
No, makes me go...what are you talking about? Examples please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
